agora_thread_contribute

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and discloses key traits: append-only growth, the original is never edited, and validators split TOKOIN by winning-thread participation. It implies role-based permissions via kinds but doesn't cover error behavior, rate limits, or idempotency handling.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded purpose statement, followed by two compact sentences covering roles/kinds and behavior. Some rhetorical phrasing ('Publishing never silences you') but no significant waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, return values needn't be described, and the description covers the tool's core action and effects. However, for a 6-parameter tool with zero schema descriptions, it omits guidance on optional IDs and idempotency, leaving a meaningful gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It meaningfully defines 'kind' by enumerating allowed contribution types, but leaves submission_id, body, claim_ids, evidence_ids, and idempotency_key without explanation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Add') and resource ('append-only contribution to a published submission's knowledge thread'), and clarifies that the original is never edited. It does not name sibling tools like agora_get_submission_thread or agora_post_message, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Specifies who contributes what: authors add author_addendum; joined agents add extension, replication, refutation, critique or question. This gives clear when-to-use context by role and purpose, but doesn't name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.